Feb 5, 2013 12:00pm PST
view and that's something i wanted to examine in the book. >> tanya, the big news is the pentagon changing the rules and saying it would allow women in combat going forward. i've heard and i have read some who have sort of said the facts on the ground already were sort of there, women were on the front line in a lot of ways. i wonder how much do you think this policy change will affect -- how will it affect women serving right now or just sort of a confirmation of how things already were? >> lifting the ban was certainly a confirmation of where the military was already headed. but this is quite significant. it's a historic moment because now women will be able to have many more job opportunities. if you look at the general officers rank in the military, 80% of generals come from the combat arms branches which up until now women have been banned from serving in. only 7% of women are general officers at the flag rank even though they make up almost 15% of the force. >> tanya, one of the unique challenges that you have talked about is the way that women are treated in the military an
Feb 5, 2013 1:00pm PST
in -- through reductions and efficiencies in the pentagon budget, we put $300 billion into jobs, which saves teachers, which invests in school frukt, a and helps schools. >> congressman, mr. ryan and mr. mcconnell at the beginning of this year said quite clearly the revenues issue is now closed. it's off the table. there are no more discussions on revenues. >> so they would rather cut home heating oil for seniors -- >> yes. >> they'd rather cut women and infants and children. >> yes. >> food grams. >> yes. >> they'd rather cut things like that than ask rich people for more money? >> what about meals on wheels, head start. that's what they'd like to cut, this is correct. >> so it's brutal. it's cruel. and it will cause layoffs and we will see economic growth decline, and they're willing to do this just to protect the wealthiest few. and i think it's a moral outrage. i think americans of all stripes ought to stand up and say no. and this is why the progressive caucus members have offered the balancing act. because, you know, there is a way forward. there is a way to address budget
Feb 5, 2013 10:00am PST
head -- the former lead counsel at the pentagon. and by eric holder today. but eric holder seemed to be either conflating or combining imminent threat with ongoing threat. tell me about the memo itself. >> that is exactly the rub. they have -- it is certainly true that administration officials, all those you mentioned, have articulated that it is the bottom administration policy that targeted killings of americans who are associated with al qaeda are lawful and constitutional under certain conditions, and the first concern is that the individual poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the united states. in other words, capture is not feasible, and the operation is done according to law or principles. what this memo does, which is not something that has been public, is flesh that out and provide details about what they mean by that, and one of those striking points is when they get to defining imminent threat. they talk about a broader -- the memo explicitly says that they have intelligence that the targeted individual is involved in an active plot against the united states.